Category Archives: GDP & Productivity

GDP Growth in the Fourth Quarter of 2011: Not a Very Good Report

Posted on by
BEA release of 1/27/12 2011 Q3% growth 2011 Q4% growth Contribution to GDP growth in 2011 Q4
Total GDP 1.8 2.8
A.  Personal Consumption Expenditure 1.7 2.0 1.45
B.  Gross Private Investment 1.3 20.0 2.35
   1.  Non-Residential Fixed Investment 15.7 1.7 0.18
   2.  Residential Fixed Investment 1.3 10.9 0.23
   3.  Change in Private Inventories nm* nm* 1.94
C.  Net Exports nm* nm* -0.11
D.  Government Consumption and Investment -0.1 -4.6 -0.93
   1.  Federal Government 2.1 -7.3 -0.62
   2.  State and Local Government -1.6 -2.6 -0.32
Memo:  Final Sales 3.2 0.8 0.82
        nm* = not meaningful

The Bureau of Economic Analysis of the US Department of Commerce released this morning its first estimate of GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011.  The headline figure of 2.8% growth of total GDP might look reasonably good (actually, it is less than is needed in the on-going recovery, with unemployment still so high; it would be a reasonable growth rate if the US were already at full employment).  But the underlying details that led to this overall growth are worrisome.

As has been noted before in this blog, the short run dynamics of the quarter to quarter change in GDP is heavily influenced by what is happening to the change in private inventories.  Keep in mind that it is the change in the change in private inventories that is one component of the change in GDP in any given quarter.  In the third (and final) revision to the estimated GDP accounts for the third quarter of 2011, the change in private inventories was essentially zero.  This was down from a positive growth in inventories in the second quarter, and hence the contribution to the change in GDP in the third quarter was negative.  I noted then that there was a good chance that inventories would return to some positive growth in the fourth quarter, and hence spur the GDP growth figure for the quarter.  And this they did.  According to this first estimate for the fourth quarter, 1.94 percentage points of the 2.76% growth in total GDP (rounded to 2.8% in the reports), was due to this bounce back of  private inventories.  That is, 70% of the growth (1.94 / 2.76) was due to the change in the change in private inventories.

Leaving out this change in the change of private inventories, the growth of final sales was just 0.8%.  This is substantially down from the 3.2% figure for the third quarter.  This is a disappointment.  If final sales do not grow by more than that now, in the first quarter of 2012, one can easily see private inventories being cut back, and overall GDP growth would then be negative.  If that happens for two quarters, one will have met the standard definition of a new recession.  Not good in an election year (or any year for that matter).

There were two main reasons why final sales grew so much more slowly in the fourth quarter of 2011 than in the third quarter.  One was that non-residential fixed private investment grew by only 1.7% in the fourth quarter, sharply down from the 15.7% annualized growth in the third quarter.  It was still positive growth, and hence contributed to overall GDP growth, but only by 0.18 percentage points vs. a contribution of 1.49 percentage points in the third quarter.

Offsetting this a bit was the encouraging figure that residential fixed investment (mainly housing construction) grew at a 10.9% rate in the fourth quarter.  This was the fastest growth for such investment in a year and a half.  But this quarter to quarter figure can bounce around substantially.  More importantly for the contribution to overall GDP growth, residential fixed investment has declined by so much (since 2006), that it is now a relatively small share of GDP.  It would need to triple (i.e. grow by 200%) to get back to where it was before.  And non-residential fixed investment is 4.6 times as large, so what is happening to non-residential fixed investment is much more important.

But the most important reason for the disappointing growth in fourth quarter GDP was an absolute decline in government expenditure.  Total government consumption and investment expenditure fell by 4.6% in the fourth quarter, with federal government expenditure falling by a sharp 7.3% and state and local government expenditure falling by 2.6%.  For 2011 as a whole, federal expenditure fell by 2.0%, while state and local expenditure fell by 2.3%.

With this drag caused by falling government expenditures, it should not be surprising that GDP growth was so weak, held up mainly by inventory accumulation.  And if inventories now revert (over time, the quarter to quarter changes average close to zero), the US could fall back into a recession.  Yet many Republicans and especially the Tea Party supporters continue to claim that the way to get strong growth is for government to contract.  They claim that such contractionary policies will be expansionary.  Yet one sees no evidence of this in the new figures.  If it were not for the accumulation of private inventories (items produced but then not sold), GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011 would have been extremely weak.  Contractionary policies are contractionary.

But there was good news on the inflation front, assuming one believes lower inflation is always good.  As part of the GDP accounts, the BEA also estimates the price deflators for the various GDP components (so as to go from the nominal measures to real ones, so one can then get real growth rates and changes), and in particular the price deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE).  This PCE deflator is favored by many, including reportedly Alan Greenspan (although he in fact focused more on the core PCE deflator, which excludes food and energy prices), as the best estimate of what is happening to US inflation.  The PCE deflator rose by 1.8% in 2010 as a whole, and then at an (annualized) rate of 3.9% in the first quarter of 2011.

Conservative economists, such as John Taylor of Stanford and Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon, as well as Republican politicians such as Congressman Paul Ryan and others, had complained of the Fed’s aggressive policies to spur the economy, and asserted that they would lead to high inflation in the US (see, for example, here and here).  John Taylor often invoked the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe as a warning of what could happen if monetary policy was not brought under control (see, for example, here).  The rise in the PCE deflator in early 2011 was promoted as evidence of inflation starting to rise.  Keynesian economists, such as Paul Krugman, argued inflation was not a concern, with the economy in a liquidity trap and high unemployment keeping down wages so that unit labor costs were falling or flat.  They argued that the rise in observed inflation in early 2011 was due to changes in volatile commodity prices such as oil, and that such changes are rarely sustained.

What has happened since early 2011 clearly supports Krugman and the Keynesians.  After  rising at a 3.9% rate in the first quarter of 2011, the PCE deflator rose at a 3.3% rate in the second quarter and a 2.3% rate in the third quarter.  And the newly released figures for the fourth quarter indicate an estimate of just a 0.7% rise in the fourth quarter.  While the fourth quarter figures are subject to change, the trend is clearly down, with an inflation rate that is indeed arguably now too low.  Such a low inflation rate makes it more difficult for the economy to adjust (as relative prices are then more difficult to adjust), plus the very low rate increases the risk of the economy declining into price deflation, where it can be very difficult to emerge (as Japan faced in the 1990s).

One final point:  One should not put too much weight on any figures on the economy for just one quarter.  Quarter to quarter figures can bounce around a lot.  And the figures released today are simply the first estimates of what the economy was doing in the last quarter of 2011.  Over the next two months, these initial estimates will be revised twice, as is always done.  Sometimes the revisions can be significant.

Still, some of the initial estimates are of concern, and should the trends continue into 2012, the economy will be in trouble.

Why Have Productivity and Profits Gone Up During Obama’s Term?

Posted on by

In the post immediately preceding this one (see directly below, or here), I noted that a glance at the economic data makes clear that productivity and profitability have both increased under Obama.  Hence, the argument made by Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates that onerous regulations imposed by Obama are the cause of disappointing job and output growth, is simply not correct.  If new regulations were such a problem, one would have expected productivity and especially profitability to have suffered, and yet both have improved.  Indeed, profitability has sky-rocketed.

For convenience, here is the basic graph again:

But this naturally then also raises the question of why productivity and especially profitability have gone up by so much under Obama.  Indeed, some might wonder whether Obama’s administration has deliberately favored profits at the expense of wages.

While a full analysis cannot be done here, I find no reason to jump to such a conclusion.  The path of profits is what one would expect over the last few years, with the sharp collapse in output at the end of the Bush Administration and then only a slow recovery with unemployment staying high.  There is the separate issue of the longer term trends, where profits have been growing as a share of National Income since about 1980 (for the last decade, see here, and for the underlying data and the longer term see the BEA data at here).  But the fluctuations over the last few years can be well understood in terms of the short term dynamics of the economic collapse and subsequent slow recovery.

Specifically, profits fell sharply in the economic downturn at the end of the Bush Administration, and started to to fall (per unit of production) as far back as 2006.  It is worth noting that housing prices peaked in the first half of 2006, and the economy began to slow after that.  A collapse in profits when the economy collapsed is as one would expect.

In response to the economic downturn, the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates, ultimately to historically low levels of essentially zero for rates on risk-free assets.  Coupled with other aggressive Fed measures, as well as the TARP program to stabilize the banks (launched by Bush) and then the Obama stimulus program, the collapse was halted and the economy then started to grow in the middle of 2009.  Profitability then recovered.

The business response to the downturn was to lay off workers, as they always do in a downturn, and then later they invested in new machinery and equipment.  The investment was spurred in part by the low interest rates following from the Fed policies, and indeed the recovery in non-residential private fixed investment was surprisingly strong (see here).  Both these actions increased labor productivity, as shown in the diagram above.

But aggregate demand growth remained sluggish, despite the growth in private investment.   The downturn was due primarily to the bursting of the housing price bubble that the Bush Administration regulators had allowed to build up (or at least made no attempt to limit).  As housing prices collapsed, home owners became poorer and many ended up with mortgages that were larger than the now lower values of their homes.  Stock prices also fell, hurting retirement and savings accounts.  Coupled also with worries generated by high unemployment, households hunkered down to consume less and try to save more.  Private consumption stagnated.  And after the Obama stimulus plan was passed (helping to stop the free-fall in output and to turn around the economy), political pressures from the Republican Party and especially the Tea Party wing made it impossible for government to maintain a high enough demand to fill in the still large gap in aggregate national demand.

As a consequence, the recovery in growth was limited and unemployment has stayed high.    This has kept wages largely flat.  But labor productivity rose due to the large early lay-offs and later the growth in business investment.  With wages flat but labor productivity higher, unit labor costs fell.

In addition, there are non-labor costs (not shown in the diagram) which also fell.  The main component of such costs that fell was interest payments, which the Fed reduced to the maximum extent it could to try to spur the economy.

With both unit labor costs and non-labor costs down, profits rose and rose sharply.

Regulations Under Obama Cannot Be Blamed: Productivity and Profits Have Gone Up

Posted on by


The Republican Presidential candidates, and especially Mitt Romney, have repeatedly asserted that burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama Administration are to blame for the disappointing performance of the economy during the recovery, and especially the disappointing job performance.  The evidence points to the opposite:  productivity has in fact performed quite well and profitability has sky-rocketed.  If regulations were a problem, one would have expected productivity to have declined and profitability to have suffered, and they haven’t.

The disappointing performance of the economy in recent years can rather be attributed to slow growth in aggregate demand.  Households have had to scale back consumption after the housing bubble burst, while conservative fiscal policies forced by a Republican Congress have not allowed government expenditures to fill in the resulting gap.

The chart above shows how labor productivity, unit labor costs, and unit profits have performed in recent years (for non-financial corporations), each indexed so that the 2005 average equals 100.  Labor productivity (in green in the chart) is the amount of output produced per unit of labor.  It was basically flat prior to Obama taking office, rising by just 2.2% total in those four years, but then jumped by 8.6% total in the subsequent 2 1/2 years.  If regulations imposed by Obama were a major hindrance, productivity would not have gone up like this.

But while labor productivity improved, labor compensation (not shown in the chart to reduce clutter) was basically flat.  Indeed, hourly wages in real terms have declined slightly since Obama took office (by 0.8% total).  This is consistent with a slack labor market, with high unemployment depressing wages.  With higher productivity and wages not increasing, the result was falling unit labor costs (labor costs per unit of output), as shown in blue in the chart.

What did shoot up after Obama took office was unit profits (profits per unit of output, in red in the chart).  This is much more volatile, but it is interesting to note that it peaked in the third quarter of 2006 and then fell sharply well before Obama took office.  If someone is to be “blamed” for this, it would have to be Bush.  Unit profits then reached its low point in the second quarter of 2009, as the recession came to an end, and then skyrocketed by over 75% up to the third quarter of 2011 (the most recent data available).  This is of course all consistent with what has been observed at the level of the aggregate National Income accounts, which was reviewed in an earlier post (see here) on this blog.

Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates assert that burdensome regulations under Obama have stifled the ability of business to make a profit, and with that, businesses have been unwilling to employ more workers.  But productivity has improved and profitability has soared.  The evidence simply does not support their assertions.